Checks and Balances

May 6, 1937

BY LEAVING TO THE Overseers their right to veto appointments, degrees, and statutes passed by the Corporation...President Dunster saw the value of a system of checks and balances in University politics. Whereas many other colleges have only one governing board, their trustees, Harvard has two, and the workable board of seven must obtain the sanction of the cumbersome board thirty.

This veto power of the Overseers is not there in name alone. On three occasions, they have exercised their power, the most important being the case of the appointment of President Eliot....Although there is dispute as to just which is the number one governing board of the college, the fact that the Overseers have absolutely no initiative power seems to relegate them to second place. Also, the Corporation, unlike the larger body, are self-perpetuating; they may elect whom they choose, and members serve until they resign or die. At first this seems too exclusive, but it must be remembered that, with a group of only seven, the board must be friendly and be in the same walk of life to accomplish what they must.

Finally, there is the matter of finances. All the property of the University is in the name of the Corporation. They control all the University finances, and this control is subject to no veto power above. Thus, though the system of University government is one of checks and balances, the pendulum seems to be stuck far over on the side of the Corporation.

One of the most controversial issues on campus today is how Harvard is ruled and how power is distributed. The Corporation's power today has clearly overshadowed that of the Board of Overseers, a trend which, as The Crimson observed in the following editorial, was well underway 50 years ago.